Still, (from the song "O Holy Night"):
"A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn...."
Merry Christmas!
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Kings are born in palaces, not in stables. Virgins do not give birth. Poor is not rich. Death is not birth.I question some of your ideas buddy. What defines kings is not where they are born, but their bloodline. Virgins don’t give birth, I agree with you there. People can be materially rich, but in terms of the qualities they possess, very poor. Death is certainly not birth, but if you take the Christian doctrine as an allegory, I’m sure that you get the point. Religions are not based on empirical facts, rather they are concerned with purported aspects of life, be that experiential and/or spiritual. If you examine a religion looking for hard proof of the things they purport, you’ll just end up seeing it as a load of rubbish.
Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2020, 10:06 pm Kings are born in palaces, not in stables. Virgins do not give birth. Poor is not rich. Death is not birth.Merry Christmas!
Still, (from the song "O Holy Night"):
"A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn...."
Merry Christmas!
Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2020, 10:06 pm Kings are born in palaces, not in stables. Virgins do not give birth. Poor is not rich. Death is not birth.It's only a story, so why worry about it?
Still, (from the song "O Holy Night"):
"A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn...."
Merry Christmas!
Fanman wrote: ↑December 25th, 2020, 5:59 am Ecurb,Not even that.
Kings are born in palaces, not in stables. Virgins do not give birth. Poor is not rich. Death is not birth.I question some of your ideas buddy. What defines kings is not where they are born, but their bloodline.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 25th, 2020, 10:14 am"Only"?
It's only a story...
Wartime Christmas
Joyce Kilmer - 1886-1918
Led by a star, a golden star,
The youngest star, an olden star,
Here the kings and the shepherds are,
Akneeling on the ground.
What did they come to the inn to see?
God in the Highest, and this is He,
A baby asleep on His mother’s knee
And with her kisses crowned.
Now is the earth a dreary place,
A troubled place, a weary place.
Peace has hidden her lovely face
And turned in tears away.
Yet the sun, through the war-cloud, sees
Babies asleep on their mother’s knees.
While there are love and home—and these—
There shall be Christmas Day.
Ecurb wrote: ↑December 25th, 2020, 11:42 amYes, only.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 25th, 2020, 10:14 am"Only"?
It's only a story...
Myths resonate when they embody personal histories writ large.
Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2020, 10:06 pm Kings are born in palaces, not in stables. Virgins do not give birth. Poor is not rich. Death is not birth.Obviously you Ecurb are no fan of religion.
Still, (from the song "O Holy Night"):
"A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn...."
Merry Christmas!
Remember though, as Bertrand Russell said, you must always keep philosophy, religion, and science separated.I agree with this sentiment. Philosophy requires an open-mind, religion requires giving up on your autonomy, and science requires the following of a strict, proven method.
Fanman wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 2:34 am h_k_s,One can thoroughly combine science and philosophy, but should one? Keeping them separate may be a good idea, by not getting any real answers, the illusion of hope is more easily maintained.
Remember though, as Bertrand Russell said, you must always keep philosophy, religion, and science separated.I agree with this sentiment. Philosophy requires an open-mind, religion requires giving up on your autonomy, and science requires the following of a strict, proven method.
Intrinsically, they function in different ways, which also seem to contradict each other in various ways. If you try to combine them, they cannot be facilitated in a way that will get the best or right results.
One can thoroughly combine science and philosophy, but should one? Keeping them separate may be a good idea, by not getting any real answers, the illusion of hope is more easily maintained.This doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. Care to expound?
Ignorance is bliss for most people, lacking the ability to combine science and philosophy may be a lucky personality trait for most people.This doesn’t make clear to me what you initially said, but if you don’t want to expound, that’s fine. I was just interested in how science and philosophy could be combined. As in, what role could philosophy play in science?
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
To reduce confusion and make the discussion more r[…]
Feelings only happen in someone's body, n[…]